Penalty of Rs 25000 imposed on Under Secy in Jammu & Kashmir


The then Chief Information Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 25 thousands on Dr Murtaza Rashid, Under Secretary and then PIO Health and Medical Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar, for his failure to provide timely information to the RTI applicant.

“The Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) of Health and Medical Education Department, shall deduct the penalty amount of Rs 25 thousand from the salary of Dr Murtaza Rashid and deposit it in the appropriate account of the state

Also Read:

Government and besides filing a compliance report to the State Information commission within one month from the date of receipt of this order,” says the order issued by CIC.

The CIC further directed that the Commissioner Secretary Health and Medical Education Department shall ensure the implementation of this order and file compliance report within seven days.

Penalty proceedings against Murtaza Rashid were initiated under Section 17(1) of the J&K RTI Act, 2009 vide Commission order dated April 5, 2018, in the 2nd Appeal titled Vinod Kumar Vaid versus FAA/PIO Health & Medical Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar, for his failure to provide the requisite information to the appellant sought under RTI Act.

Earlier, while disposing off the second appeal on April 5, 2018, the Chief Information Commission had directed the present PIO Nisar Ahmad Wani to dispose of the RTI application of the appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipts of the Commission’s order and provide the information sought for by the appellant through his original application.

The appellant Vinod Kumar Vaid of Roop Nagar Jammu has sought information on eligibility criteria for the senior citizens to avail Health care benefits in the Government hospitals in J&K, details of such health care benefits, OPD card fee and other tests fee being charged from senior citizens by the Government hospitals and any preferential treatment to them.

Even as penalty has been imposed on the then PIO, the required information sought by the appellant has not yet been furnished by the present PIO despite the Commission’s order for the same on April 5, 2018.